''I know quite well what "anamnesis" means. However, a brief review of Anglican literature on the subject indicates that they have abandoned largely the Orthodox understanding of the word.

''I know quite well what "anamnesis" means. However, a brief review of Anglican literature on the subject indicates that they have abandoned largely the Orthodox understanding of the word.

''

''

+

'''What do you mean by the "continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ?"''' I mean a memorial or commemoration of the Death of Christ, to be perpetually celebrated by His Church " till He come " (1 Cor. xi. 26).

'''What do you mean by the "continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ?"''' I mean a memorial or commemoration of the Death of Christ, to be perpetually celebrated by His Church " till He come " (1 Cor. xi. 26).

Revision as of 06:30, August 3, 2008

SOME changes were implemented

Only some of the recommendations made by the Moscow Commission were made by the Antiochians and ROCOR. This shouldn't be controversial. --Fr Lev 16:22, February 12, 2008 (PST)

The use of "some" is misleading; all recommendations for the liturgy (and hours) were made by both Antioch and ROCOR (and Alexandria, and Moscow).

Certain vagantes use this language to cast aspersions on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, claiming it is invalid, because it did not implement all the recommendations of the 1904 Observations...which is false. - User: Willibrord

Only SOME of the changes were made; that is a simple fact. I am not a vagante nor have I claimed the liturgy in question is "invalid," but one need not make false claims such as the one that ALL of the recommendations were adopted. --Fr Lev 17:34, February 13, 2008 (PST) Before Willbrord changes my edits again, perhaps he could read the Observations and compare them to the liturgy. --Fr Lev 07:07, February 14, 2008 (PST)

From what I recall from having read about this some time ago, the Observations noted the inadequate language of sacrifice in the oblation of the anaphora, but nothing was changed. One of their biggest complaints was the compromising language of the Prayer Book. The classic example of this is in the words for administering communion. The "Catholic" 1549 BCP had "The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." The "Protestant" 1552 replaced these words with "Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." The Elizabethan compromise book of 1559 intended to allow Catholic- and Protestant-minded Anglicans to both use the BCP simply combined the two sets of words. This compromise language is maintained in the Tikhon text. The penultimate paragraph of the Observations has some choice words about this compromise approach. I also recall that the Observations wanted a great deal more "glorification and invocation" of the Saints, which became only a reference in the intercessions to "blessed Mary and all Thy Saints." --Fr Lev 08:27, February 14, 2008 (PST)

ALL (not some) of the recommendations of the Observationsfor the Liturgy and Hours have been implemented, and to say otherwise is simply false. The Observations list all required changes in the last paragraph, and all relating to the Liturgy or Hours have been made. St. Tikhon's Liturgy includes the "glorification and invocation" (to borrow your quotation) of:

- in the Confiteor (clearly printed in both The Orthodox Missal and the St. Andrew Service Book): "Blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, blessed Michael the Archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, [and] all the saints";

- in the Suscipe Sancta Trinitas: "blessed Mary Ever-Virgin, of blessed John (the) Baptist, the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and of all Thy saints."

- in the Libera Nos (Again, in both TOM and SASB): a supplication for "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, Ever-Virgin Mother of God, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, Andrew, and all Thy saints."

All of these prayers are prayed throughout the Antiochian WR Vicariate and are included in TOM, but the SASB (along with its other irregularities) does not include any of the priest's silent prayers -- perhaps because the SASB is a simple parish prayer book and not a priest's Missal, much less the Vicariate's official text of the Mass. But even in the SASB, "glorification and invocation" of the saints was never "only a reference in the intercessions to 'blessed Mary and all Thy Saints.'" Your allegations demonstrate either ignorance or malice.

No, they demonstrate logic. The "Observations" clearly state that the reason the Liturgy is inadequate is that it does not EXPRESS the Orthodox doctrine. What you are saying is that the people don't need to HEAR the Orthodox doctrine so long as it is buried in the silent prayers. That is truly a heterodox attitude to the understanding of the lex orandi. --JosephSuaiden 22:58, July 18, 2008 (UTC)

If the 1892 BCP were Orthodox in itself, there would have been no need for the Observations. If these fathers believed the BCP were incapable of expressing Orthodoxy, there would be no use for the Observations; however, they explicitly instructed St. Tikhon to conduct "negotiations" to allow the establishment of a BCP-based Orthodox liturgy. Finally, several of the cited prayers aren't "silent," unless one is reciting the Canon silently, which is not standard AWRV pratice. --Willibrord 17:18, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

What a change from your original: "If these fathers believed the BCP were incapable of becoming Orthodox, there would be no need for the Observations." The Observations themselves SAY the BCP is not Orthodox and would require substantial changes, as well as being "unsuitable for new sons of the Orthodox Church". Nothing in the observations says "negotiations" are to take place and in fact they didn't. The text says specifically that "But worship which is so indefinite and colourless (in its denomination bearing) cannot, of course, be accepted as satisfactory for sons of the Orthodox Church, who are not afraid of their confession of Faith, and still less for sons who have only just joined the Orthodox Church from Anglicanism. If it were, their prayer would not be a full expression of their new beliefs, such as it ought essentially to be." It then details what changes would need to be made. These changes are neither fully implemented nor done during St Tikhon's lifetime. The service is still essentially Protestant.--JosephSuaiden 20:28, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

"Nothing in the observations says 'negotiations' are to take place." Oh? The Observations state since the prescribed changes "can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions, it is found desirable to send the "Observations" themselves to the Right Rev. Tikhon, the American Bishop. They will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received." (Emphasis added.)

The negotiations never took place, and that's what "can" is for. They did not INSTRUCT St Tikhon to do anything, and he didn't. The observations would serve as a basis to understand what needs to be done for Anglicans to become Orthodox. If certain "anglo-Orthodox" followed them, we wouldn't have this confusion.--JosephSuaiden 06:28, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

Your quotation begins, "The examination of the [1892] 'Book of Common Prayer' leads to the general conclusion" -- meaning the unaltered 1892 BCP; as I wrote, if the 1892 BCP expressed Orthodoxy as-is, there would obviously be no need for any changes. Thus, there would be no need for the Observations. And as you'll note from this page, we disagree as to whether all the changes set forth for the Hours and Liturgy have been made or not. I feel a strong case has been made that they have, and the moderators should act to change the current misleading text added (repeatedly) during one poster's edit war. --Willibrord 02:35, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the other poster. They have not been sufficient, and as I pointed out, they have been mostly silent. The AWRV's literature itself refers to the changes as "indiscernable", which says volumes in terms of their views on the Observations.--JosephSuaiden 06:28, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

The Observations -- which say the Gallican Liturgy makes reference to sacrifice only "somewhat vaguely" -- state the idea of sacrifice must be "inserted...into the rite of the Liturgy," though it does not specify the canon proper; the idea could be expressed, as in the Gallican Rite, in other places. In St. Tikhon's Liturgy, there is an abundance of sacrificial references in the canon and without. The priest's offertory prayers (specifically the In Spiritu Humilitatis and Veni Sanctificator, as well as the Suscipe)and the Orate, Fratres clearly call the Eucharist a "sacrifice." The priest also prays the Placeat Tibi before the blessing, beseeching, "grant that this sacrifice which I, unworthy that I am, have offered in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable unto Thee...."

...the text of the "consecration" in the LOST says: "for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death and sacrifice, until his coming again:"
This is *precisely* the Protestant teaching of the sacrifice of Christ: not a perpetual sacrifice, but a mere perpetual memorial of the one sacrifice, that of the cross. So much for the use of the word "sacrifice".--JosephSuaiden 22:58, July 18, 2008 (UTC)

"The Eucharistic sacrifice is not a repetition of the Saviour’s Sacrifice on the Cross, but it is an offering of the sacrificed Body and Blood once offered by our Redeemer on the Cross, by Him Who 'is ever eaten, though never consumed.'" -- Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology. You may also wish to investigate the translation of the Greek term anamnesis, which hardly rules out sacrifice. --Willibrord 17:18, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

I know quite well what "anamnesis" means. However, a brief review of Anglican literature on the subject indicates that they have abandoned largely the Orthodox understanding of the word.

What do you mean by the "continual remembrance of the Sacrifice of the death of Christ?" I mean a memorial or commemoration of the Death of Christ, to be perpetually celebrated by His Church " till He come " (1 Cor. xi. 26).

Before whom, more especially, does the Church make the memorial? Before God the Father.

Can it be that the Holy Communion is intended merely to remind us of Christ's Death? No; it is plainly intended to remind God of the "Sacrifice of Christ's Death."

Why are we sure that our Lord ordained this Sacrament, not to enable us to exercise an act of the memory but to enable the Church to make before God a public commemoration of His Sacrificial Death?
Because our Lord, in speaking of "remembrance," employs the word anamnesis, which is elsewhere only used as betokening such a public memorial as the Church has ever held the Eucharist to be. --
Source: Manual of Christian Doctrine, Rev Walker Gwynne, 1888.

In other words, the Episcopalians LACKED the proper Orthodox understanding of the word "Anamnesis", so before you tell an Orthodox how to look up words, please be certain those who think that pre-1979 Anglicans are Orthodox had a very flawed understanding of the Eucharist and their prayerbook reflected it.--JosephSuaiden 06:28, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

The Ecce Agnus Dei and added Pre-Communion Prayers make the Real Presence explicit - no Protestant or Zwinglian would be comfortable saying such things! Again, these are found in both TOM and the SASB.

The Agnus Dei is part of the Lutheran liturgy. --JosephSuaiden 22:58, July 18, 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the Observations left implementation to Church authority; they end by acknowleding, "since the detailed changes...can be carried out only on the spot, in America, in correspondence with existing demands and conditions" the Observations "will thus serve in the negotiations as materials for the determination in detail of the conditions on which Anglicans disposed to Orthodoxy can be received."

Still, it is a demonstrable fact that all changes of St. Tikhon's Liturgy and Hours have been made by Antioch, Moscow, Alexandria, and (in Australia) ROCOR. The canonical (or non-canonical) status of L'ECOF doesn't enter into this discussion; readily verifiable facts do.

I will thank the moderators if this closes the matter, and such erroneous language is not allowed to be reintroduced.

I have three basic responses. First, without going into how Orthodox Christians should act, one should – on a purely secular level -- note that attributing malice as a possible motive is not a good way to foster communication or progress in the editing of articles, not to mention bad manners.

Your comments were erroneous enough only to proceed from one or the other source, as they were belied by their own alleged sources. It is certainly bad manners to take pains to misrepresent the situation in other jurisdictions or confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction.

Second, since last writing about this, I have obtained a copy of the OM. I think it is superior to the SASB in numerous ways. That being said, I still find the attempt to marginalize the SASB as “a parish prayer book” a little puzzling. Despite previous denials, the SASB is an authorized book of the Antiochian Archdiocese as clearly indicated by the letter from Metropolitan Philip included in the front of the book. There is no relevant difference in the wording of the Metropolitan’s letter in the OM from his letter in the SASB.

The Metropolitan's letter at the front of TOM states, "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." There is no similar statement in his letter in the SASB, nor has he amended his letter in any subsequent edition of TOM, as you can now verify.

Someone in the AWRV may not like the SASB, but to suggest (as has been done before) that the SASB is not an authorized service book it to imply that the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved, or that perhaps he is acting “in ignorance or malice.” None of these possibilities are plausible.

On the contrary, it is you who rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes The Orthodox Missal as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.

Noting the SASB was designed as a parish prayer book is but noting a fact; presumably this explains why it does not includes the priest's silent prayers and other information necessary to celebrate Mass.

Third, as to the claim that all of the additions recommended by the Russian Commission’s Observations have been made to the Liturgy of St Tikhon and to the hours, an evaluation of the claim requires more than a checklist of items mentioned in the concluding paragraph. One must read what comes before that paragraph to understand the context of the additions.

You've added nothing from that section of the Observations that contradicts the fact that ALL recommendations about the Hours and Liturgy have been fulfilled.

As for the invocation of the Saints, I did in fact quote from the principal intercessions of the Liturgy, i.e., in the prayer “for the whole state of Christ’s Church,” the complete reference – “blessed Mary and all Thy Saints….”

And conveniently elided several others, including two from the SASB's text of the Mass. How odd.

Moreover, the Observations – in the section on Morning and Evening Prayer –say: “But at the same time, while the recourse in prayer to the Most Holy Mother of God, to the Angel Hosts, and to the illustrious saints, the glorification and invocation of them, forms an essential part of Orthodox and Catholic worship, these things are entirely foreign to Anglican worship. It is absolutely necessary that there should be introduced into this worship some such prayers (or hymns) in one or another form and degree.”

While the OM doesn’t include these hours, the SASB does contain Matins and Vespers, and neither has any additions of prayers or hymns to meet this requirement, which was termed “absolutely necessary” by the Commission. This one requirement that is clearly unmet falsifies the claim that “all” of the changes demanded by the Commission were made.

False (once again), both about the SASB and AWRV practice in general. Regarding the SASB, apparently you missed the concluding prayer of Vespers, which begs "the intercession of the blessed and glorious Mary, ever-Virgin Mother of God, of blessed Joseph, of Thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, of blessed Andrew, and of all the Saints" - odd, since it's clearly printed in the SASB. (It also prays for the day when "all adversity and error being done away with.") More to the point, AWRV missions typically conclude Morning Prayer and Evensong by singing the appropriate Marian antiphon. This is prescribed in St. Dunstan's Psalter, used by every St. Tikhon Liturgy parish with which I'm familiar, prescribed even before its publication in the Office presented by Fr. Nicholas Alford at St. Gregory the Great AWRV Church, and it was not an innovation then. This is the AWRV's standard practice. (Some parishes also pray the Rosary or saints' litanies immediately following the Hours, or at another time.)

A similar complaint and requirement is made concerning the Great Litany. The Observations say, “But examining it in connection with its origin, and comparing it with the Roman Catholic Litany from which it was derived, again under Lutheran influence, we clearly discern its protestant character, in that it does not contain the invocation of the Mother of God, of the spiritual Hosts and the Saints, who occupy a very prominent place amongst the Catholics, and even had a place (like prayers for the dead) in the first edition of 1544, though only in an abbreviated form in the shape of an invocation of saints en bloc, without particularizing names. In case of any full restoration of Orthodox beliefs, it would be timely and expedient to bring in again both the invocations and the prayers, as being characteristic of this kind of devotion."

Yet when one turns to the Great Litany (SASB, 51-55), one finds no mention of the Mother of God, the spiritual Hosts, or the Saints.

The Great Litany is neither an Hour nor a Liturgy, and your mentioning in this regard only muddies the waters. However to swing at this particular pitch-in-the-dirt, The Orthodox Ritual, the form authorized by the AWRV for use in parishes, includes the traditional Litany of the Saints, wherein the saints and angels commemorated run more than three columns. It also includes various other saints' litanies.

Of course, the SASB contains other prayers/invocations of the saints as part of its "Prayers and Thanksgivings" section, pp. 27-44.

As for the Confiteor, this is not a part of the liturgy proper (it comes before the Introit), and it has never been a part of any Book of Common Prayer, much less the 1892 BCP referenced in the Observations. Simply adding a Roman prayer (one that is foreign to the Anglican rite) does not seem adequate. Moreover, why borrow a Roman prayer to make the BCP more Orthodox? A mention of the Mother of God, one angel, and three saints (John the Baptist, Peter, & Paul in the SASB Confiteor on pp. 61-62) seems less robust that “the glorification and invocation” of “the Most Holy Mother of God, … the Angel Hosts, and … the illustrious saints.” --Fr Lev 15:42, June 25, 2008 (UTC)

The Confiteor is part of what is known as "The Prayers at the Foot of the Altar," a part of Western Rite liturgies and is clearly printed in the SASB. If the 1892 BCP were itself sufficient, there would have been no need for the Observations. (You may be interested to know most Anglo-Catholic parishes had already reinserted this prayer into the BCP liturgy at the time of the Observations.)

...And then there are those three other prayers I mentioned, which invoke a total of 18 saints (if I've counted right), which you omitted from your response. How odd. You've also conceded the sacrificial aspect of this discussion,as you've not offered any defense of your previous erroneous assertion.

At any rate, I hope the moderators agree that I've made more than a compelling case.--Willibrord 14:15, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I missed a prayer in Vespers that mentions saints. There is none in Matins. I don’t think the Observations had in mind adding saints to just some offices, rather than all. To pretend that all of the recommendations were inserted into the Liturgy and office in the face of even one omission is just silly. No one is saying that the Metropolitan isn’t competent to authorize a form of Matins that doesn’t mention the saints; the problem arises only when one makes a false claim that all the recommendations were inserted.

More on the "missed" prayers below. But here, dear reader, is the thrust of the game. The SASB was a simple guide for the laity, not a missal. (See above, and below.) Many claim it is a competing text of the Mass on par with the approved text of the Orthodox Missal in order to cite items the SASB omits and charge the Antiochians with approving a liturgy (or hours) that do not fulfill the Observations. And, of course, offer their own alternative. However, this article is not about the SASB; it's about the AWRV's practices. It should not be controversial that any article about the AWRV should be based on its praxis, not on an incomplete text fonud in a book.

The Litany is for use at the beginning of the Liturgy or during Morning or Evening Prayer. If the Confiteor is a text for the Liturgy (because it comes before it), then so is the Litany. And it is certainly a text for the office, since it is to follow the third collect in either office.

The Confiteor is clearly printed within the text of the Mass in the SASB. The Litany is neither part of the Hours nor Liturgy but a separate service of its own, which I am familiar with being recited by itself. This isn't hard.

Not all Anglo-Catholic parishes used unauthorized prayers as part of the liturgy itself. My experience in a number of Anglo-Catholic parishes was that the Confiteor was said in the sacristy as part of the private preparation of the sacred ministers. In any event, Anglo-Catholic usages should not be considered as determinative of Orthodox practice.

Here again he obfuscates. He previously claimed the Confiteor was "foreign to the Anglican rite." Now he admits it was part of Anglo-Catholic practice and had personally seen it done -- and changes the subject, without admitting error. Does he have any guiding star except to assault those who dare disagree with him? We do not need this kind of truth-twisting on OrthodoxWiki.

There is still an attempt to confuse the status of the SASB. Willibrord quotes a sentence from the Metropolitan’s letter in the front of the OM (“The” is not part of the name of the OM, so it isn’t correct to use “TOM” as an acronym), "These approved texts are the exclusive use of our Archdiocese." This does not say, as Willibrord would like it to say, that the OM is the “exclusive” or “only” approved text. But supposing arguendo that this was true in 1995 when the OM was published, it became false the next year when the SASB was published. There is not a similar statement in the SASB, because the OM was in existence. No one has claimed that the SASB is the only authorized service book.

The Metropolitan’s letter in the SASB is quite clear that the first edition of the SASB “was approved for use by the Western Rite Congregations of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1989.” While it began as a parish prayer book, it was authorized for use in any Western Rite parishes. The letter goes on to refer to “these authorized liturgies.” It is silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false, to say, as Willibrord does, that I “rob the Antiochians of the right to determine their practice. The Archdiocese administers the Western Rite through the Antiochian Western Rite Vicariate, which prescribes The (sic) Orthodox Missal as its exclusive use unless explicit written permission is given. This is neither controversial nor hard to understand. It misrepresents the situation tremendously to constantly point to a parish prayer book all-but-unused in the AWRV as though it were the equal of its actual practice.” I am not determining Antiochian practice; the Metropolitan does that. His letter in the front of the SASB makes clear his permission to use it. The edition of the SASB in front of me is printed, not by a parish for that parish’s exclusive use, but by the Archdicoese for any of its Western Rite clergy and parishes.

While it may be practice to sing a Marian antiphon after Matins or Vespers in the AWRV (when I was an Anglo-Catholic, we did so only after Compline), there is no rubrical provision for doing so in the SASB. The only mention of an antiphon in the OM I have seen is the Regina Coeli to be used in place of the Angelus.

That the SASB would omit certain rubrics from Matins is hardly surprising, since it omits whole prayers and portions of the liturgy necessary for the priest to say Mass. This is because it was never intended to be a full Missal or text of the Mass and is simply a parish prayer book to assist the laity in following along. Errors come by fibbing that the SASB is more than it was ever intended, or authorized, to be. As this article deals with the praxis of the AWRV, and that praxis is in accord with the Observations, the article should reflect that.

As these are printed in the section on the Divine Liturgy, one would infer that these follow the celebration of the Divine Liturgy. In any event, the Observations were recommendations for altering the texts to be used; it is not an adequate response to say that an hymn to one saint, not included in the authorized text, somehow meets the Commission’s requirement for glorification of the Theotokos, the Angelic Hosts, and the saints. Saying the Western Rosary is similarly not an answer. Nor is the inclusion of optional prayers. Nor is the Litany of Saints, since it is not part of the ordinary of the Liturgy.

As Willibrord himself indicated, the other prayers he mentioned are not in the SASB.

No, I don’t concede the question of sacrifice at all. There is only so much time to deal with these misrepresentations. As Willibrord would quibble with any reading that disagrees with his own, just as he wishes to pretend that the mention of saints in one Vespers prayer somehow makes Matins with no such prayer in conformity with the Commission’s Observations, it seems pointless. --Fr Lev 15:59, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Differences between the Orthodox Missal and the St Andrew's Service Book

To repeat a question I posted on another page: since Willbrord has made a point of saying that almost all AWRV parishes use the Orthodox Missal and not the St Andrew's Service Book, perhaps he would be kind enough to specify what differences there are between the versions of the two eucharistic liturgies and why they matter, i.e., why is the OM version so preferable to the SASB? --Fr Lev 07:05, February 14, 2008 (PST)

What is at stake?

Since Willibrord has seen fit to imply unworthy motives to me, let me be crystal clear. (1) The Antiochian Archdiocese is fully competent, in the person of its ruling hierarch, to authorize (as he has) the liturgies contained in the OM and SASB. (2) I have no problem with the AWRV using the OM or the SASB. (3) I do not believe that the Observations of the Moscow Commission of 1904 have any authority over the liturgies authorized by the Antiochian Archdiocese – they were made for the limited purpose of saying (in a general way) what changes would have to be made to the American 1892 BCP to make it acceptable for use by parishes under the omophor of Bishop (Saint) Tikhon.

My only purpose on this page is to correct one simple statement that is in error – the claim that all of the necessary changes were made in the Liturgy of St Tikhon. That has led to the necessity of having to defend the status of the SASB.

By way of contrast, Willibrord has implied that I am one of the vagantes, said that I am ignorant or malicious, claimed that I am seeking to “rob” the Archdiocese of the right to choose its services, that I have attempted to “confuse others about the canonical status of one's own jurisdiction” (when I haven’t mentioned my jurisdiction), and he has talked about the canonical status of ECOF (which I haven’t mentioned).

I take such personal attacks to be contrary to the standards of OrthoWiki. --Fr Lev 16:40, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

As the moderators will note, I never called you personally a vagante but merely noted the reason such language was not only wrong but offensive: vagantes make this argument to demean canonical WRO. He reintroduced the erroneous information. Although the non-canonical status of L'ECOF is well-known here, it was not introduced into this discussion by me. In making his edits, he has selectively quoted SASB and rebuffed correction when it has been made. Regardless of motive, that is certainly contrary to OrthodoxWiki standards.

The moderators can also verify that "Fr Lev" has taken to following me around the board, changing nearly every recent entry I have made. I'm sinful enough to appreciate the attention, but....

I might add, the article and OrthodoxWiki overall might benefit from its contributors making a less intensely personal identification with their work, seeking fewer occasions wherein to take umbrage, and focused more on objective facts.--Willibrord 17:21, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

I said you implied I was one of the vagantes, as you think it is they who make this criticism of the AWRV liturgies. As anyone can read on this talk page, I never brought up ECOF or my jurisdiction -- you did. I have not been following you around OrthoWiki, nor changing nearly every entry you make. That's a lie. Until this week, my last post on this page was in February. I also don't put scare quotes around your name. I am not personally identifying with my "work" -- I am responding to the personal invective ("ignorant", "malicious", trying to "rob" the Antiochians, etc.) you have sent my way. --Fr Lev 17:32, June 26, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in this melodrama you're putting forward to cover the fact that you selectively quote materials, omit inconvenient facts, and engage in endless edit wars.

Any of our august moderators can see how you essentially stalked me on OrthodoxWiki during my last edits here between Feb. 12-14, 2008, by viewing the the history pages of the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and the main Western Rite page. All clearly begin with an edit by me, followed by edit-war from you. (You managed to get at least one of those pages locked.) Here you are again, doing the same thing. So much for the "lie" you impute to me.

Selectively citing information to give a false impression is not new to you:

- You ignored two prayers in the SASB (and even more in the Liturgy of St. Tikhon as celebrated Vicariate-wide) to claim all its intercessions amounted to only one petition to one saint.

- You "missed" a prayer in Vespers and erroneously asserted there was none.

- You ignore all the Propers, including the additional Mass Collects, begging the saints' and angels intercessions.

- You ignore the actual praxis of the AWRV to conflate it with an incomplete text found in a book.

- In another discussion, you ignored huge chunks of one linked website and misinformed the moderators it was merely about "William F. Buckley, Jr. -- nothing whatsoever to do with Western Rite Orthodoxy!" When I pointed out your incredibly selective reading, you claimed you were the victim.

- In yet another discussion, you stated falsely that you were quoting our moderator, Fr. John, when you changed his words.

A pattern seems to emerge.

You are quick to claim others are personally assaulting you when they dare edit you. When one knowledgable contributor corrected you, you wrote, "It is difficult for me to not suspect that your post springs from some kind of personal animus. You have made it a pooint [sic.] to follow-up postings I have made with responses that have been inaccurate and personal. That isn't appropriate for OrthodoxWiki." When he replied -- as I have -- that he's merely replacing misinformation with accurate non-POV information, you accused him of "slander." (Yet on another discussion, you instructed, "Ari needs to be careful when he imputes bad motives to people, as well as when he mis-states facts.") And when yet another OrthodoxWiki contributor disagreed with your misleading POV language, you fumed this "indicates a clear personal animus that is out of place in a venue that seeks to be an encyclopedia." Elsewhere, you told him, "you are just being silly." But, you were saying, "personal invective"?

And, of course, you were the first to claim I had written that "the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese does not have the authority to decide which service books are approved" and somehow claimed I accused him of "ignorance and malice." (What a way to twist a post!)

In other words, it appears you are hysterically accusing me of your own actions. Whether these stem from pushing an agenda, ignorance, or a very one-sided and sloppy handling of sources, none of it is beneficial to a correct, non-POV OrthodoxWiki entry.

At any rate, the weight of all this suggests you are less-than-capable of presenting objective facts about Western Rite Orthodoxy, are highly volatile when contradicted in any way, and perhaps should be moderated to prevent future edit-wars and long, personal attacks against OrthodoxWiki contributors on the Talk pages when they write more accurately about WRO than you desire.--Willibrord 22:58, June 27, 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been protected for the time being so that the editors involved can politely work out a consensus among themselves before further editing it. The protection of the current version does not constitute an endorsement of its contents by the management.

Since this seems to be a subject of some controversy, the controversial elements come under the policy in the Style Manual regarding original research. In particular, whether or not "all" or "almost all" of the recommendations from Moscow were implemented by the AWRV or ROCOR in their versions of this liturgy will have to be established by reputable, third-party sources and then cited accordingly. (Looking through the liturgy's text and making this evaluation yourself constitutes original research, which is not permitted on OrthodoxWiki for controversial subjects.) Otherwise, any mention of the question will have to be removed from the article. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 15:46, June 28, 2008 (UTC)

There is a paucity of published scholarly material on the questions at hand, but there is one such review essay of the SASB published in St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, Vol. 41 (1997), No. 2-3, pp. 249-268. (This essay sould be added to the article's references.) It concludes that "most of the changes required by the Observations simply were not made" (p. 256). Reviewing the essay reminded me of other examples of changes not made. The Observations criticized , e.g., the BCP's anaphora for not commemorating the Saints. No such commemoration was added, as the essay notes (p. 254). Clearly, "all" is not acceptable in that it is a false claim. I would have been content with "almost all", even if "only some" is more accurate. Given the level of hostility even the modest qualifier of "almost" provoked from another editor, perhaps the only solution is to remove any mention in the relevant articles to changes being made in accordance with the Observations. --Fr Lev 20:30, July 1, 2008 (UTC)

In the Other Churches

I would like to see documentation on the claim, "ROCOR has since implemented all of them, as well, in approving 'The English Liturgy.' Hierarchs in the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Moscow Patriarchates, as well as ROCOR, have approved a form of this liturgy."

"The English Liturgy" that is linked in the article bears little resemblance to the Liturgy of St Tikhon, and purports to be based on several sources -- the medieval Sarum, the 1549 BCP, a 1718 liturgy (?), etc. -- not the 1892 BCP that Moscow examined nor the 1928 on which the Liturgy of St Tikhon is actually based. While bracketing the question of the actual provenance of the "English Liturgy," it seems anachronistic at the very least to say that it has added all of the chnages required by the Commission, when the Commission didn't examine this particular mélange.

Fr. Michael of St. Petroc monastery himself wrote The English Liturgy "was carried out strictly observing the terms of the 1907 report of the Commission of the Holy Synod of Russia, which fixed the method by which the services from the Book of Common Prayer might be adapted for use by Orthodox people." here and here (original source). --Willibrord 17:18, August 2, 2008 (UTC)

I've not run across references to the Liturgy of St Tikhon being approved by Moscow or Alexandria. Those would be good to see. --Fr Lev 15:46, July 2, 2008 (UTC)